Socialized Childcare

A short while ago, there was a thread about mandatory preschool. The idea was met with mixed reviews, but one critique of it was that this would amount to socialized daycare.

Well, all schooling issues aside, what's the problem with socialized daycare?

There are numerous ways that both parties have discussed how to improve productivity in the economy, but one way that isn't often discussed is socializing daycare.

Given how much more productive families could be if both parents worked more and if single parents found it easier to work longer hours, it seems like a good idea.

The amount spent in the daycares themselves would surely be less than what we'd get back from the labor force working more.

What do you guys think?

 

Why "socialized" childcare? Why not affordable childcare?

 

Because if we go with "affordable childcare", the daycares will not earn enough money. Socialising it allows the daycares to earn enough money as it comes out of our taxes.

 

So child daycare centres in America aren't businesses, but rely on government handouts?

 

As verses the parents not making enough to cover child care costs and they ask for tax credits and Medicaid.

 

I think parents should be responsible for their children.

 

Nope....it's the nation's and parent's responsibility to ensure the safety and proper development of future citizens.

 

Are you a radical extremist or something? We want to pop out kids then leave it in govt care until maturity, that way we can work more, party more or just leave some other joker to foot the bill.

 

It's use could be restricted for legitimate reasons only such as a tight work schedule or schooling.

 

Is your avatar from the Melancholy of Haurhu suzumyia?

 

It would help a lot of people out, specifically those single moms that have to work part time because of kids. So I give it a thumbs up. But it should only be for those kids that are ready. This shouldn't be something that is forced on them.

 

Or if the parents own guns or Bibles.

 

It is first and foremost the parents' responsibility to raise their children. In case you haven't noticed, WE ARE BROKE. And what makes you think universal pre-K will do anything to ensure the safety and proper development of "future citizens" (I would argue any person alive is a citizen)?

- - - Updated - - -

But you're all for forcing the expense onto those of us who pay the bills.

 

You know what Pre-K is? It's educating kids with the basics? Want to know what the Founding Fathers considered the best way to have productive citizens? Education.

- - - Updated - - -

If we go with it, yes.

 

You're a liberal. Of course you want others to pay for your utopia. However, I find your feeble attempt to insinuate the Founding Fathers would support universal pre-K to be laughable, especially given our current financial circumstances. In case you haven't noticed, our education system isn't working. What makes you think another year in a failed education system is going to help?

Think about it.

 

I agree parents should be responsible for their children. It is also up to society to have checks and balances in place to ensure the welfare of children.

 

Yes, it's a means of conditioning children to obey authority figures other than their parents.

 

Welp seeing that a lot of ppl are nutjobs (evident by the republican party) I think it's best for our future citizens to question their parents lest we produce more nutjobs. God forbid.

 

I would never give my children over to an indoctrination center nor will I willingly pay for another's bill. If they want to send a child to daycare they can send their kids on their own dime.

 

Obviously you're used to being told what to think.

He has nothing to do with your kind - unless of course your appeal is to the god of this world, to whose ears your juvenile imbecilities are sweet music.

 

No, the idea is to make them something every can access. Daycare is expensive, and if you can't pay for it, you can't really get a job. Not everyone has a support system where they can have a relative or friend take care of their child(ren).

 

It depends on your definition of "socialized". If by that, you mean voluntary sharing of costs and responsibilities through private markets and charities, then I would say there is nothing wrong with it. If, however, "socialized" is meant "paid for through coercive taxation schemes", then I would say the problem is corruption, inefficiency, and MORE perverse incentives to pawn your children off on the government. If we want to strengthen families and communities, we must give them more responsibility, not less. Bringing up children is a job for parents, not government employees.

Like I said, it depends on how it is structured. Voluntary networks are most conducive, I think, to facilitating sustainable wealth creation and productivity growth. When arbitrary government central planning is injected, however, distortions arise (artificial surpluses and shortages, price volatility and inflation, etc.) and potential wealth creation is prevented (through opportunity costs). It's hard to see what could have been, had we allowed the market to spend those approximately $4 trillion tax dollars (not to mention the hundreds of billions lost through monetary inflation!) instead of a bunch of crooked politicians and their special interests.

 

-

Why not allow people to find their own solutions.

Pershaps Grandparents, Aunts, Uncles, Brothers and Sisters Families, or just good friends are the best solution for many families.

Should we "Disqualify" those types of solutions, because they don't include organzied indoctrination programs?

-

 

Studies have actually shown that children of very nuclear families, with a parent who stays home to raise the kids, actually succeed at far higher rates. They do better in school, have fewer disciplinary problems, and continue to more successful professional lives.

We don't need socialized daycare. No one would find it right for the government to pay my wife to stay home and take care of our kids, so why is it okay for the government to pay someone else to take care of them?

 

I don't like the idea. I think it's important and good for the children and the mother if they spend more time together. preferably, the mother should not work during the child's first years at all. All this socialising that socialising this is breaking down the traditional familiy structure and relieving us of responsibilities that we ought to have. Like taking care of our elderly parents, our extended family, and our children. We have to remember that humans are animals, social animals. we're not built just to maz out productivity. I think it's seriously hurting us actually.